BA strike self-defeating

[manrow]

So says new Transport Secretary.

I happen to agree with him, especially as all world airlines are having a tough time currently. Is this the forerunner of the sort of confrontations that were orchestrated by the unions as soon as Thatcher was in power?

[Barry]

So says new Transport Secretary.

I happen to agree with him, especially as all world airlines are having a tough time currently. Is this the forerunner of the sort of confrontations that were orchestrated by the unions as soon as Thatcher was in power?

Not really, because this started under Labour, but Labour would not condemn the unions because of the upcoming election.

[soloman]

Do we really want to see our national airline destroyed by the actions of these political activists? The costs to the country will be enormous if the unions win the day, as foreign airlines are already benefitting enormously from the disruption these strikes are causing.

It's been quoted before that the BA cabin staff at Heathrow are paid considerably more than at their other bases, so what else is behind this dispute? As a relatively frequent flyer I have tended to avoid using BA at Heathrow, and feel sure I am not alone in that.

Our economy is in almost total disarray and hard decisions are about to be made which will affect us all; how can the unions justify their demands at this precise moment in time?

[DC]

Yes this is what's happening, when the Unions get out for political gain and ignore the overall well-being of their members.

[Major Sinic]

Do we really want to see our national airline destroyed by the actions of these political activists? The costs to the country will be enormous if the unions win the day, as foreign airlines are already benefitting enormously from the disruption these strikes are causing.

It's been quoted before that the BA cabin staff at Heathrow are paid considerably more than at their other bases, so what else is behind this dispute? As a relatively frequent flyer I have tended to avoid using BA at Heathrow, and feel sure I am not alone in that.

Our economy is in almost total disarray and hard decisions are about to be made which will affect us all; how can the unions justify their demands at this precise moment in time?

I agree with you totally. I too am a regular flyer, and currently don't even consider BA. I will have absolutely no sympathy when these well comparatively well paid staff are laid off. BA pilots today appealed to the new transport Minister to intervene, citing their concerns for job security. The trouble is it is not only the strikers who will lose their employment but ground staff , suppliers staff etc etc, who have done nothing to deserve the chop.

[Barry]

I can see BA being bought out by another airline, if this continues. Then the unions involved will be destroyed.

[Don]

I am reminded of the now defunct Eastern Airlines. The pilots went on a strike that drove the airline into bankruptcy and eventually completely out of business. Everyone lost their jobs, but I guess the union proved their point.

[Ian The Poet]

I totally agree these strikes could easily end BA forevever.

[soloman]

I totally agree these strikes could easily end BA forevever.

They could indeed, but I sense that BA are achieving more flights this week than ever before; does that mean that the cabin staff are slowly slinking back to work? This is the last of the 3 series, and no announcements yet on any further. Hopefully that means no disruption for the rest of the world cup time?

Come on Unite admit your members were wrong and recommend they go back to work!

[Neo2012]

Yes this is what's happening, when the Unions get out for political gain and ignore the overall well-being of their members.

rofl just ignore the fact "81% of cabin crew endorse industrial action"

[Major Sinic]

Can somebody, anybody, explain to me what the grievances of the BA cabin staff are? We read in the media, including the Guardian ( so it is not all Murdoch's press!!), that BA cabin staff are well paid compared with other airlines, but nowhere are the grounds for their seeming self-destructive action publicised.

These strikes are taking place against a background of substantial losses by BA, exacerbated by the Icelandic volcano situation. Elsewhere in the private sector, employees are accepting salary cuts, short term working and a loss of benefits, in order to retain employment.

It seems to me that the ultimate result could well be the fire sale of BA with the loss of many jobs and a reduction in the income of those that remain.

[Streetwalker]

Can somebody, anybody, explain to me what the grievances of the BA cabin staff are.

As far as I can make out the sticking point is all about the perks,free flights ect.

[soloman]

As far as I can make out the sticking point is all about the perks,free flights ect.

From what I read I believe these are the main sticking points now. See these are mentioned in the article in the Mail on Sunday today:-

While BA cabin crew begin third 5-day strike, Unite boss Tony Woodley flies out for a luxury sunshine holiday | Mail Online

It cannot be helpful for Tony Woodley to go on holiday right now?

Also a quote on the pilots' rumour website says:-

The 65 long-haul flights that did get away had either quite substantial loads or (around 30) were empty and the number of cabin crew in total used was around 465 when normal operations would need 2500. Of those there is no breakdown as to how many were existing crew and how many volunteers.


So you can see that the BA management and strikers are polls apart if the archaic industrial agreements specify 2,500 cabin staff are needed where legally 465 will do?

If you would like to know what the strikers are doing then read here, and follow up with the lifestyle of the Unite union's leader:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ket-line-.html

[Midas]

... It seems to me that the ultimate result could well be the fire sale of BA with the loss of many jobs and a reduction in the income of those that remain.

Quite, but on a wider canvas, as is so often the case where workers believe, or are lead or coerced to believe by those with vested social or political interests, that they are 'entitled' to more than they currently receive, regardless of where they might stand in comparative league tables of pay and ancillary benefits. If less people behaved like narrow-minded sheep and started to think for themselves about what really mattered in relation to themselves, their jobs and the companies they worked for, we might see more industrial harmony, greater productivity and profits all round, including for the workers themselves.

[soloman]

Quite, but on a wider canvas, as is so often the case where workers believe, or are lead or coerced to believe by those with vested social or political interests, that they are 'entitled' to more than they currently receive, regardless of where they might stand in comparative league tables of pay and ancillary benefits. If less people behaved like narrow-minded sheep and started to think for themselves about what really mattered in relation to themselves, their jobs and the companies they worked for, we might see more industrial harmony, greater productivity and profits all round, including for the workers themselves.

Such good sense Midas, pity the union members won't listen!

[JAMC]

The reason this dispute is dragging out is now around one issue only:

BA, or rather Willie Walsh, refuse to re-instate travel allowances to those union members that came out on strike previously earlier on in the dispute.

Now apart from that being totally illegal on BA's part as it's discriminatory on the grounds of trade union affiliation, the travel perks have become symbolic of the central question of a union presence within BA.

The union cannot back down on the issue as they are in effect defending the legal right to collective bargaining itself. I'm surprised that they haven't brought litigation against BA for the discriminatory behaviour displayed - I would have done so in a heartbeat.

The image that most posters on this forum have in their heads of militant anarcho-socialists attempting to extract truly unfair demands from a company that just wants to get on with things is utterly wrong. There is now no real dispute over the key proposals BA wanted to push through to ensure the viability of the airline's future - just the bad blood and beligerence of BA in their ongoing attempt to penalise certain staff for daring to take action against them.

Be under no illusion - Willie Walsh has "Union-smashing for dummies" and he's running it chapter by chapter. Unfortunately Unite don't seem to have sharpened their game to match it just yet.

[Scooby]

My understanding from friends of mine who work for BA is that the travel perks are just that, a perk not a condition of employment and it is made quite clear in their contracts that they can be withdrawn by the company more or less at will. Staff outside Heathrow are now getting both worried and annoyed that the actions of the heathrow lot are going to sink the airline and with it all their jobs.

[JAMC]

My understanding from friends of mine who work for BA is that the travel perks are just that, a perk not a condition of employment and it is made quite clear in their contracts that they can be withdrawn by the company more or less at will. Staff outside Heathrow are now getting both worried and annoyed that the actions of the heathrow lot are going to sink the airline and with it all their jobs.

You are correct, they are a perk, not a contractual benefit of employment and BA do have the right to widthdraw perks such as these from the employee benefits package across the entire company. What they don't have the right to do is selectively widthdraw them from individuals based on political or union affiliation or in retribution for taking industrial action which is perfectly in accordance with the law - that is illegal. Non-discriminatory treatment of staff applies to all aspects of the employer's dealings with their workforce, not just those stipulated as full contractual benefits. I have immediate family that did 35+ years at BA and used the travel perks on many occasions during that time. It's not the perks themselves that are in question - they are a peripheral issue and cost the airline next to nothing - it is BA's wish to punish those staff that took industrial action that is the true underlying dispute. It is a question of vindictiveness over sane business sense - on the current showing I can only assume that BA will crash and burn with Willie Walsh in command.

[soloman]

You are correct, they are a perk, not a contractual benefit of employment and BA do have the right to widthdraw perks such as these from the employee benefits package across the entire company. What they don't have the right to do is selectively widthdraw them from individuals based on political or union affiliation or in retribution for taking industrial action which is perfectly in accordance with the law - that is illegal. Non-discriminatory treatment of staff applies to all aspects of the employer's dealings with their workforce, not just those stipulated as full contractual benefits. I have immediate family that did 35+ years at BA and used the travel perks on many occasions during that time. It's not the perks themselves that are in question - they are a peripheral issue and cost the airline next to nothing - it is BA's wish to punish those staff that took industrial action that is the true underlying dispute. It is a question of vindictiveness over sane business sense - on the current showing I can only assume that BA will crash and burn with Willie Walsh in command.

On the cabin staff rumour network is the following latest message:-

Quote:
if I will remain on my current T&C's why is there a need for Mr Walsh to change anything then... I should just stay the same apart from offering a pay cut which i am happy to do for a period to help the company.
You can stay the same - apart from changing the crewing levels onboard, which is enough of a change for current crew to meet the cost savings required. All you have to do is accept the new crew numbers that have been working since Nov. Nothing more. No pay cut required, it's only BASSA that want you to take one so that some CSD's can continue with their purely supervisory role on the aircraft.


That tells a different story? Suggests it is inter-union activists are prolinging this dispute rather than Willie Walsh?

[Midas]

You are correct, they are a perk, not a contractual benefit of employment and BA do have the right to widthdraw perks such as these from the employee benefits package across the entire company. What they don't have the right to do is selectively widthdraw them from individuals based on political or union affiliation or in retribution for taking industrial action which is perfectly in accordance with the law - that is illegal. Non-discriminatory treatment of staff applies to all aspects of the employer's dealings with their workforce, not just those stipulated as full contractual benefits. I have immediate family that did 35+ years at BA and used the travel perks on many occasions during that time. It's not the perks themselves that are in question - they are a peripheral issue and cost the airline next to nothing - it is BA's wish to punish those staff that took industrial action that is the true underlying dispute. It is a question of vindictiveness over sane business sense - on the current showing I can only assume that BA will crash and burn with Willie Walsh in command.

That may well be the case if it was as simple as that, however, and as Soloman points out, I have very little doubt that there are left wing political activists directly involved in this dispute on the union side who are preventing an easy solution. Why otherwise would a large company which is already under financial siege take the course of action it is doing? I can quite understand Willie Walsh's attitude to the union action, but he's no fool and he wouldn't be taking his hard line unless there were some exceedingly good reasons for it.

The union and its members need to sit down and really think of the long term implications of their actions; it would be a Pyrrhic victory if, for what's essentially the want of a perk or two, they brought BA down and handed its business to rival airlines on a plate, perhaps losing all their jobs, and those of thousands of others, along the way.

[manrow]

That may well be the case if it was as simple as that, however, and as Soloman points out, I have very little doubt that there are left wing political activists directly involved in this dispute on the union side who are preventing an easy solution. Why otherwise would a large company which is already under financial siege take the course of action it is doing? I can quite understand Willie Walsh's attitude to the union action, but he's no fool and he wouldn't be taking his hard line unless there were some exceedingly good reasons for it.

The union and its members need to sit down and really think of the long term implications of their actions; it would be a Pyrrhic victory if, for what's essentially the want of a perk or two, they brought BA down and handed its business to rival airlines on a plate, perhaps losing all their jobs, and those of thousands of others, along the way.

I wouldn't disagree with a word of your comments in your last paragraph Midas! However the reality is "it would be a Pyrrhic victory if, for what's essentially the want of a perk or two, they brought BA down" that MANY of the BA cabin staff do not live close to Heathrow and hence need the essential crumb of cheap staff travel to fly into Heathrow to work!

[Midas]

I wouldn't disagree with a word of your comments in your last paragraph Midas! However the reality is "it would be a Pyrrhic victory if, for what's essentially the want of a perk or two, they brought BA down" that MANY of the BA cabin staff do not live close to Heathrow and hence need the essential crumb of cheap staff travel to fly into Heathrow to work!

That might well be the case, and there may well be company and industry precedents to support their 'needs', however the bottom line, especially in recessionary times, is surely that if you work for an airline flying out of a particular airport, it's up to you to live within easy reach of that airport or find another job. It's not up to the airline concerned to get you to and from where you live to work, no more than it might be for a school to bus its teachers to and from home to school.

[Owenmac]

I think the residual issues here are trivial and exaggerated by weak union leadership. Willie Walsh has already stated his opinion that the tail is wagging the dog in this case, the unions had already agreed to the deal on the table but the crews themselves want more.

The Heathrow crews are very quickly becoming pariahs within BA, as many others recognise the risk they are putting the company at.

[manrow]

I think the residual issues here are trivial and exaggerated by weak union leadership. Willie Walsh has already stated his opinion that the tail is wagging the dog in this case, the unions had already agreed to the deal on the table but the crews themselves want more.

The Heathrow crews are very quickly becoming pariahs within BA, as many others recognise the risk they are putting the company at.

So, what can be done about such pariahs? There is nothing new in all this, the Heathrow crews have been like this for many years.

[soloman]

So, what can be done about such pariahs? There is nothing new in all this, the Heathrow crews have been like this for many years.

How is it that Heathrow employees can be so out of step with other airports employees for the same company?

[soloman]

That might well be the case, and there may well be company and industry precedents to support their 'needs', however the bottom line, especially in recessionary times, is surely that if you work for an airline flying out of a particular airport, it's up to you to live within easy reach of that airport or find another job. It's not up to the airline concerned to get you to and from where you live to work, no more than it might be for a school to bus its teachers to and from home to school.

If resolution of this fracas were to be that easy Midas, then the confidential proposals recently put foward by the Acas moderator ought to see and end to this dispute quite quickly?

Mediator seeks to break BA dispute deadlock* - Yahoo! News UK